5,073 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Nov 12, 2017 13:42:14 GMT
False accusations are really rare. Not every accusation can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that doesn't mean they were false accusations, just that they couldn't met the evidentiary standard for sending someone to prison. Legal systems are predicated on the basis of it being better that a guilty person go free than an innocent person go to prison. Even if the guilty person going free continues to offend. There's a reason why convictions tend to occur when there are multiple victims. Civil society does not have to make the same decision. We can decide that we would rather an innocent person doesn't have their career as an actor or director prosper than have a rapist become rich, celebrated, powerful and successful. We can decide that we just don't enjoy watching the work of someone we think might be a rapist. People in the industry can decide that they don't want to work with people who have been accused because they don't want to risk the safety of their staff or because they don't like the atmosphere they create on set. Certainly with a Weinstein or a Spacey it is evident that they created hostile working environments. Of course that will depend very much on the audience and the industry. Over the years audiences have decided that they can watch films by Woody Allen and Roman Polanski without being distracted by the accusations against them, and many in the industry have worked with them without complaint. But right now that sentiment appears to be shifting. No-one really wants to watch Jimmy Saville or Rolf Harris on TV now. Kevin Spacey's career is dead. We will see what happens with Ed Westwick. There are cases out there of a man being accused of rape and convicted then handed a custodial sentence, thinking more recently about the case of Chad Evans. However accusations by one person can be made to the police and the police will not do anything, because the police want to wait for other accusations to come forward, they call it going on "Safari" or "Shaking the Tree". The Crown Prosection Servics know that if they just have 1 person in court to say the defendant "did it" and the defendant said "I didn't do it, your honour", the the jury will likely side with the defendant, how could the jury find someone guilty, one persons admission isn't beyond reasonable doubt, there have been many times a defendant has walked, as the case sounded strong and the victim sounded very truthful, but yet the case has collapsed because the jury isn't confident of convicting on one person's admission. This isn't helped by when people make proven false accusations, like in the case of Chad Evan. More recently a onus victim got jailed, when her account proved to be false, when she claimed she was raped by 8 men, before this another man was convicted because of her making false allegations and was serving a jail term, it was proven to the jury in this case by the prosecution that she made these allegations to make her lover jealous, she rightfully got jailed for 4 years for perverting the course of justice, in my mind eye, she should have got double that, she has done a terrible disservice to all genuine victims, with her pernicious allegations. I have been in that exact situation on a jury panel in a similar case, where several people made allegations, but if it was one person, I am not sure if my vote would have been different. The burden to get the right decision is immense, even today I replay the trial in my head to see if I made the correct decision, I always come up with the same conclusion though. Incidentally the man walked free from jail 20 years earlier, where a jury wouldn't convict the defendant of 6 charges of rape, that person happened to be his own daughter. So in a way I have seen all sides and from a jury perspective and see why the police do nothing in the first instance. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Nov 12, 2017 13:55:05 GMT
Civil society does not have to make the same decision. We can decide that we would rather an innocent person doesn't have their career as an actor or director prosper than have a rapist become rich, celebrated, powerful and successful. You can, but if you have any sort of moral sense at all you wouldn't, because you're essentially saying "I don't care who gets hurt so long as I get what I want". That's not really any different from the purported attitudes of the people who are being attacked. When someone stops caring whether someone is innocent or not — if they ignore the possibility that they might be wrong — then as far as I'm concerned they've lost any right to claim to be civilised. I could turn that around on you exactly, though. That if you permit people who have been accused of horrible crimes to continue in their careers because it couldn't be proved to a jury - and we do know that in many cases it doesn't even get to a jury, because it's just so hard on victims - you are saying you don't care who they might have hurt as long as you get the entertainment you want. And let's not forget we are talking about a climate where the likes of Weinstein and Spacey had many, many victims, and many people knew or had heard about it. Agents sent actresses into hotel-room meetings with Weinstein even when other clients had told them what happened in them. Life is not fair. The universe is not naturally just. So what we are talking about is who we would rather bear the burden of that unfairness. For a very long time now the unfairness has fallen disproportionately on the vulnerable and the victims. Changing that may mean that it falls on the occasional innocent man - although that has yet to be seen, note, we haven't actually had a verified false accusation yet. I like neither of those options - I would far prefer to live in a fair world. But I can't pretend there isn't a choice to make between them. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2017 14:25:39 GMT
I could turn that around on you exactly, though. That if you permit people who have been accused of horrible crimes to continue in their careers because it couldn't be proved to a jury - and we do know that in many cases it doesn't even get to a jury, because it's just so hard on victims - you are saying you don't care who they might have hurt as long as you get the entertainment you want. I'm not just thinking of entertainment or just about abuse here, and it can be a very different matter when there are many accusations and certainly when people have admitted their guilt. But those are specific instances and it's dangerous to extend that to the general case. My go-to case when it comes to issues of social media justice is the case of Justine Sacco, which I mentioned on the old forum. She made a knowing joke on Twitter about the obliviousness of privileged westerners and their attitude to the third world, but people took it seriously and went on a campaign to destroy her without ever bothering to check that they had their facts right and understood the situation properly. She lost her job (although it worked out to be better for her in the long run), but all the people who attacked her moved on to the next target of their ire without ever bothering to spare a thought for the person whose life they'd disrupted. They'd been outraged, they'd made someone suffer for their outrage, job done. Better not stop and think "Wait, am I actually the good guy here?" Might not get the right answer. This is the danger that's often overlooked. You can't undo the damage. A very few people might realise they got it wrong and perhaps some will even apologise, but sorry doesn't give someone their life back and it doesn't repair their reputation. You can always punish someone later if more evidence comes to light, but how do you take back ruining someone's career? Social justice is incredibly risky, and I don't see any signs that people are taking that into account. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2017 14:51:47 GMT
I’m confused about the use of the term ‘social justice’ here Matthew. Isn’t this about ‘criminal justice’? That isn’t risky, it’s a prerequisite for a functioning society.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2017 15:44:26 GMT
I’m confused about the use of the term ‘social justice’ here Matthew. Isn’t this about ‘criminal justice’? That isn’t risky, it’s a prerequisite for a functioning society. Perhaps that's not the right term. I mean the way people decide that the criminal justice system isn't doing the job and so they make up their own mind about guilt and innocence and act accordingly. Twenty years ago it didn't matter. Now it takes just hours to cause irreparable harm, and I'm extremely concerned at the attitude that occasionally wrecking the lives of the innocent is acceptable. We're talking about ruining someone's career now and worrying about whether they're guilty later, if ever. That's not justice. The legal system has a set of checks and balances in it to make sure that everyone is treated as fairly as they can be, but when people decide that they're entitled to take on the role of judge and jury themselves there are no constraints. It's not some sort of electronic game. There are real people out there whose real lives are affected by this. To all the people who aren't worried about attacking the innocent I'd like to ask: What mechanism for restitution do you have in place if it turns out you're wrong? "None" is not an answer that anyone should accept. I can understand that people get upset at the idea that the guilty may go free but removing protection from the innocent is not the solution, and in the case of multiple offences it is very rare indeed that the guilty aren't convicted. The courts are good at what they do. Many offenders may go into court thinking that they can tell three quarters of a story and perhaps fudge the details a bit to make it look as though they're innocent but the court staff do this day in and day out and they've seen all the tricks before. They can spot the dissembling and the carefully omitted fact a mile off and they'll keep pressing until they get to the truth. They don't always get it perfect, but they get it right far more often than the public can. |
|
4,033 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Nov 12, 2017 18:36:37 GMT
It also leads to the bigger question as we move forward, what happens to a persons body of work? Will the BBC never show a weinstein or spacey movie again? What about the other people involved in those projects, should their work never be shown because of one member of the cast or crew? Are people not allowed to watch a piece of entertainment again because one person has committed a crime? If so, a lot of tv shows, films and yes theatre shows will vanish. It could result in a very reduced down arts scene. This reminds me of looking up Mabel Normand recently, after seeing the Mack & Mabel concert at the Hackney Empire, and reading that many of her films weren't seen for decades because her co-star Roscoe Arbuckle was accused of rape and, although eventually acquitted, his reputation was destroyed so any films with him in were blacklisted. So it's happened before. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 13, 2017 8:17:54 GMT
You can, but if you have any sort of moral sense at all you wouldn't, because you're essentially saying "I don't care who gets hurt so long as I get what I want". That's not really any different from the purported attitudes of the people who are being attacked. When someone stops caring whether someone is innocent or not — if they ignore the possibility that they might be wrong — then as far as I'm concerned they've lost any right to claim to be civilised. I could turn that around on you exactly, though. That if you permit people who have been accused of horrible crimes to continue in their careers because it couldn't be proved to a jury - and we do know that in many cases it doesn't even get to a jury, because it's just so hard on victims - you are saying you don't care who they might have hurt as long as you get the entertainment you want. And let's not forget we are talking about a climate where the likes of Weinstein and Spacey had many, many victims, and many people knew or had heard about it. Agents sent actresses into hotel-room meetings with Weinstein even when other clients had told them what happened in them. Life is not fair. The universe is not naturally just. So what we are talking about is who we would rather bear the burden of that unfairness. For a very long time now the unfairness has fallen disproportionately on the vulnerable and the victims. Changing that may mean that it falls on the occasional innocent man - although that has yet to be seen, note, we haven't actually had a verified false accusation yet. I like neither of those options - I would far prefer to live in a fair world. But I can't pretend there isn't a choice to make between them. If we apply your logic, and assertion that false claims are really rare, how come Bill Clinton is still lauded on the political scene and his wife, who attacked his accusers (including one of rape) and so partly enabled his avoidance of punishment gets to stand for President ? Should no-one ever vote Democrat again ? Her dismissal of those claims with a curt "It's been litigated" is exactly what you are objecting too. The case of Leslie Grantham is interesting - as he was convicted and served a sentence for murder the BBC thought it OK to employ him. If Spacey or Weinstein is convicted then at that point does it become OK to watch their work ? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2017 9:21:59 GMT
There is a difference between an isolated murder by a teenage soldier and a lifetime of persistent abuse.
|
|
